Captive elephants of Karnataka - CUPA · 2019. 9. 11. · Captive Elephants of Karnataka An...
Transcript of Captive elephants of Karnataka - CUPA · 2019. 9. 11. · Captive Elephants of Karnataka An...
-
Captive Elephants of Karnataka
An investigation into the Population Status,
Management and Welfare Significance
Surendra Varma, P. Anur Reddy, S.R. Sujata, Suparna Ganguly
and Rajendra Hasbhavi
Elephants in Captivity- CUPA/ANCF Technical Report 3a
-
Captive Elephants of Karnataka
An investigation into the Population Status,
Management and Welfare Significance
Surendra Varma1, P. Anur Reddy
2, S.R. Sujata
3a, Suparna
Ganguly3b
and Rajendra Hasbhavi4
Elephants in Captivity- CUPA/ANCF Technical Report 3a
1: Research Scientist, Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, Innovation Centre,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560 012, Karnataka; 2: Chief Conservator of
Forests, O/o Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Karnataka, 2nd
floor, Aranyabhavan,
18th
cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003, Karnataka; 3a: Honorary President, 3b:
Researcher, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA), Veterinary College Campus,
Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, & Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre (WRRC),
Bannerghatta Biological Park, Bangalore – 560083, Karnataka; 4: Nisarga, Old. 59, New.
27, 1st ‘A’ Main Road, West of Chord, Mahalakshmi Layout Entrance, Bangalore -560086,
Karnataka
-
Published by
Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA)
Veterinary College Campus, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024
www.cupabangalore.org
In collaboration with
Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012
www.asiannature.org
Title: Captive Elephants of Karnataka
Authors: Surendra Varma, P. Anur Reddy, S.R.Sujata, Suparna Ganguly and Rajendra Hasbhavi
Suggested citation: Varma, S., Reddy, P.A., Sujata, S.R., Ganguly,S., Hasbhavi R. (2008).
Captive Elephants of Karnataka; An investigation into the population status, management and
welfare significance. Elephants in Captivity: CUPA/ANCF-Technical Report No. 3a.
Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA) and Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF),
Bangalore, India
Copyright ©CUPA/ANCF
First limited Edition 2008
Published by CUPA & ANCF
ISBN 978-81-910465-1-9
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this publication for educational
or non-commercial purposes is permitted without any prior permission from the copyright holders
provided the source is fully acknowledged and appropriate credit is given. Reproduction for
commercial purposes is permissible only with written permission of the copyright holders.
Application for such permission should be addressed to the publishers
To order copy of this book, please write to
Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA)
Veterinary College Campus, Hebbal
Bangalore 560 024
Email: [email protected]
Or
Publications officer,
Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) Innovation Centre
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Email: [email protected]
http://www.cupabangalore.org/http://www.asiannature.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
4
Dedicated to
Late Dr. Vishwanath
For his vision and service to animal welfare
-
CONTENTS
Preface 1
Acknowledgments 3
Section 1:
Captive elephants of Karnataka 5
Executive summary 6
Recommendations 9
Forest camp and zoo elephants 9
Space 9
Water 10
Diet 10
Exercise and work 11
Training 11
Reproduction 12
Veterinary care 12
Equipment related to handling animals 13
Body measurements 13
Maintenance of records 14
Overall management of zoos 14
Funds 15
Elephant mahouts/cawadis 15
Transfer or exchange of elephants among facilities 15
Adoption of elephant FCs/zoos 16
Temple/Mutt elephants 16
Permission-giving authority 17
Animal care 18
Food and water 18
Health care 19
Work conditions 19
Festival elephants 20
Logging elephants 20
Circus elephants 21
Privately owned elephants 21
Mahout/Cawadi welfare 22
Basic facilities 22
Social Security 22
Management 22
Documentation 23
Crisis management 23
-
Introduction 24
Objectives 24
Method and data-processing protocols 24
Insights on rating 25
Results 26
Population status 27
Source of elephants 27
Shelter 28
Water and associated features 29
Sleep 31
Opportunities for walk 32
Social interaction 32
Chaining 34
Observed behaviour 36
Work 37
Food provisioning 39
Reproductive status 40
Health status and veterinary routine 41
Veterinary personnel and infrastructure 42
Mahout/cawadi welfare status 43
Socio-economic status 44
Professional experience 45
Overall rating across regimes 46
Discussion 46
References 47
Section 2
Captive elephants in the forest camps of Karnataka State 49
Executive summary 50
Introduction 53
Objective of the study 53
Method 53
Results 54
Population status 55
Source of the elephant 55
Type of previous owner 55
Shelter 55
Water availability and quantity for drinking and bathing 57
Availability of rest and resting place 59
Walk 60
-
Interaction with other elephants 61
Training 62
Observed behaviour 62
Chaining 64
Nature of work 66
Provision of food 66
Reproductive status 68
Health status 71
Veterinary care and facilities 72
Infrastructure 73
Mahout/cawadi welfare status and work experience 74
Comparison of rating values between elephants and mahout/cawadi 79
Discussion 80
References 82
Section 3
Captive elephants in Zoos in Karnataka State 83
Section 3a
Captive elephants in Bannerghatta Biological Park (BBP) 84
Executive summary 85
Introduction 87
Objective 87
Method 87
Results 88
Population status 88
Source of elephants 88
Number of mahouts changed 88
Shelter 88
Water 88
Walk 89
Social interaction 90
Chaining 91
Work 92
Food provisioning 93
Reproductive status 94
Health status and veterinary routine 95
Veterinary personnel and infrastructure availability 96
Welfare status of mahout 97
Discussion 99
References 101
-
Section 3b
Captive elephants in the Chamarajendra Zoological Garden (Mysore
Zoo) 102
Executive summary 103
Introduction 105
Objective 105
Method 105
Results 106
Population status of elephants 106
Source of elephants 107
Shelter 107
Water 108
Sleep and related features 110
Walk and social interaction 110
Chaining 112
Behaviour 112
Work 113
Food provisioning 113
Reproductive status 114
Health status and veterinary care 115
Veterinary personnel and infrastructure 116
Welfare of the mahout 117
Discussion 120
References 122
Section 4
Captive elephants of temples of Karnataka State 125
Executive summary 126
Introduction 128
Objective 128
Method 128
Results 129
Population status 129
Origin of the captive elephant 129
Type of previous owner 130
Shelter 130
Water and related parameters 132
Sleep and related parameters 134
Walk and related parameters 135
Social interaction 136
-
Training 138
Behavioural parameters 138
Work type 140
Provision of food 141
Free-ranging status 142
Reproductive status 144
Health status and veterinary care 145
Status of infrastructure 149
Mahout/cawadi status 149
Overall welfare status of captive elephants in temples 152
Discussion 153
References 156
Section 5
Captive elephants under private ownership 159
Section 5a
Captive elephants of Aane-Mane Foundation 160
Executive summary 161
Introduction 163
Objective 163
Method 163
Result 164
Population status 164
Source of elephant 164
Shelter 165
Water 166
Sleep and related features 166
Walk and social interaction 167
Chaining 167
Behaviour 167
Work 168
Food provisioning 168
Reproductive status 169
Health status and veterinary care 169
Welfare status of the mahout 170
Discussion 172
References 174
Section 5b
Captive elephants of Mysore Palace 175
Executive summary 177
Introduction 178
Objective 178
-
Method 178
Result 178
Population status 179
Shelter 179
Water 179
Sleep and related features 180
Walk and social interaction 181
Chaining 182
Behaviour 183
Work 184
Food provisioning 185
Reproductive status 186
Health status and veterinary care 186
Welfare of the mahout 187
Discussion 190
References 191
Section 6
Captive elephants in Circus 193
Executive summary 194
Introduction 196
Objectives 196
Methods 196
Results 196
Status of the elephants 196
Source of the elephants 196
Purpose of keeping 197
Shelter 197
Water 197
Sleep 198
Opportunity for exercise 199
Interaction 199
Observed Behaviour 199
Work 199
Provision of food 200
Reproduction 200
Health 200
Overall rating pattern 201
Socio-economic status of the mahout 202
Discussion 203
References 204
-
1
Preface
Karnataka supports one of the last remaining viable habitats and populations of Asian
Elephants. Similarly, the number of captive elephants in the state is also significant. As
per the records, there are about 163 captive elephants (under five different management
regimes). The majority of the elephants belong to the forest department; the department
has captive elephants at its major forest camp sites like Bandipur, Nagarahole, Sakrebyle,
Dubare. The government run zoos Bannerghatta Biological Park (BBP) and
Chamarajendra Zoolgical Garden or Mysore Zoo, too have captive elephants. Most of the
private elephants are with temples and mutts. Notable private holdings are the seven
elephants of Maharaja of Mysore and Aane Mane Foundation which has three elephants.
Collecting data from these management regimes was a unique experience, which focused
on the actual status of the animal and methods that are adapted to take care of both the
elephant and its handler. This investigation was focused on understanding the problems
faced in keeping elephants as observed in the different management systems, its effect on
the welfare of the elephants/handlers, and aims to serve as a baseline data for solutions,
which would in turn help in better management. A group comprising wildlife experts,
veterinary doctors, researchers and NGOs was assembled to review the datasheet which
was developed by the ANCF/CUPA research team. The detailed datasheet deals with all
the features like elephant measurements, status of the animal, health, feeding area,
facilities provided, food provided with any guidelines or charts, hygienic condition of the
living area, temperament and abnormal behaviour of elephants, reproductive status,
availability of veterinary doctors to attend the animal and status of mahouts/cawadis and
their details.
A training programme was held at Sakrebyle Elephant camp to train the field researchers
participating in the data collection process. Elephant experts and veterinary doctors
provided training for the researchers while demonstrating the methodology at the
campsite on available captive elephants. Later, a trial survey was run for researchers by
experts at Mysore Zoo, Mysore Palace, Nanjangud Temple and Bandipur Elephant Camp
for a week. Then the lacunae or shortcomings encountered during the trial were further
rectified. A review meeting was also held with experts and interested individuals from
Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu at Bannerghatta, Bangalore. The findings and
experience of the researchers were presented and discussed before the experts for their
critical inputs. The survey reveals that presence of some elephants in institutions as well
as mortality data not being recorded/updated. It may be stated here that captive elephant-
keeping data is not all the time the easiest information to gather or sometimes, even to
access. This is because private owners, circus companies and even temples view the
investigation as an invasion of their privacy. This may be one of the foremost reasons that
could prevent the truth to emerge on actual status of elephant-keeping in these
management regimes.
The findings that are presented through this document are first of it’s kind, and hope to
provide much needed insights on elephant-keeping in Karnataka. The document has eight
sections, the first covers overall status of elephants and handlers of the state, the results
are based on comparing the welfare status of elephants across five management regimes
-
2
namely forest camps, zoos, circus, temples and private holdings. This section also has
specific recommendations for captive elephant management for the state. The second
section is dedicated to provide insights into the status of captive elephants in forest camps
of Karnataka, the third on captive elephants in zoo, the fourth on temple elephants and
the fifth and the sixth on private holdings and circus, respectively. Sections three and six
are further divided into two sub-sections, the sub-divisions provide the patterns of
difference in managing elephants within the specific sections; for example, Bannerghatta
Biological Park and Mysore Zoo could be brought under one unit of zoos of Karnataka;
however, the management in terms of space provided to elephants in these two zoos is
different, and the same is true for the two private holdings. Given the differences in
management approaches within these sections, sub-sections were evolved with the
assumption that they may provide insights into difference in management within the same
management regimes with possible consequences on welfare of the elephants.
-
3
Acknowledgement
The captive elephants of Karnataka were surveyed with financial assistance from the
State Forest Department (Wildlife) and the World Society for Protection of Animals
(WSPA), UK. Specific thanks are due to R.M. Ray, A. K Varma and I.B. Srivastava, Chief
Wildlife Wardens, Deputy Conservators of Forests of Bandipur National Park, Rajeev Gandhi National Park, Madikeri Forest Division, Shimoga Forest Division and Executive
Director, Bannerghatta Biological Park and Director of Chamarajendra Zoological Garden
for their keen interest, support and concern on improving the quality of the management and
welfare of elephants and their handlers through the specific investigation.
Special thanks are also due to Harish Bhat, Shama Karkal, Vydehi Kadur, Daniel
Sukumar, Savitha Nagabhushan, Deepika Prasad, Gauis Willson, Ramesh Belagere,
Gurudutt, Beena, Dilip Humcha and Karthik, who provided critical data and information of
the animal. Sanober, Pauline and Santosh provided their assistance in data entry. Forest Department staff and volunteers accompanied and provided valuable support in the field and
our thanks are due to all of them. Shiela Rao of Compassion Unlimited Plus Action
(CUPA) provided critical inputs. Sreenivasa Rao, Guruprasad and Susanto Sen provided
editorial support.
Initial data collection was carried out with the support of college/school teachers, researchers and
personnel from NGOs from different districts of the state, who had taken part in the first one-day
workshop organized at Sakrebyle Elephant Camp to get themselves trained for collecting data
from different management regimes in Karnataka. Special thanks are to all those teachers
who helped us in identifying interested students and participated in the data collection,
particularly Ramakrishnappa, N. Indiramma, C. Krishnegowda, Girish, Madhav, Keshav
Hegde Korse, Mukunda, Gopalakrishna, Ravi Kumar, Chandrappa G. Basappa, and H. H.
Venkatesh.
This work was possible with the support we have received from Philippe Gautier and
Prajan Chowta of Aane Mane Foundation, Meenal Moray of Art of Living Foundation,
Vishalakshi of Tusker Trails, Bandipur, Laximinarayana, Manager, Mysore Palace and
Pandiyan, Manager, Bangalore Palace, and several other individuals from temples
(keeping elephants), and we are very thankful to them for their support and interest in this
survey.
-
4
-
5
Section 1
Captive elephants of Karnataka
-
6
Executive Summary
The conditions of captivity in which elephants live vary across a wide-spectrum of
features; it is important that their welfare is assessed objectively for their well-being. This
investigation assesses the welfare of elephants maintained in captivity by different
management regimes in Karnataka. It also considers the welfare of the mahouts/cawadis.
Welfare status in this study has been assessed based on the extent of deviation in living
conditions from those experienced by their counterparts in the wild. The parameters
considered are the physical environment, social and behavioural features and care by
veterinary personnel and access to veterinary facilities.
Data was collected through observation of animal(s) and interviews with
personnel/management representing various aspects of the elephant’s life in captivity. It
was analysed using a rating scale developed by a team of experts (experts on both wild
and captive elephants) veterinarians, managers, handlers and welfare activists who rated
different parameters/sub-parameters based on their importance to the welfare of captive
elephants.
Five management regimes namely forest camp, zoo, circus, temple and private
individuals were classified based on ownership details provided. A total of 153 elephants
covering different management regimes, representing approximately 90% of an estimated
total of around 163 captive elephants in this state were observed from the state and data
collected. The distribution across regimes shows that the Forest Department camp
elephants score well over others followed by those owned by temples, zoos, private
owners and circus in that order. The survey suggests that forest camps (FCs) maintain
more males followed by zoos. More females are seen in the other four regimes. The age
class distribution is biased towards females in all regimes.
Forty-one percent of all the captive elephants were wild when caught, 23% captive-born,
26% purchased/ gifted and 10% rescued; captive-borns were reported in FCs, zoos and
circus and none in temples.
Regarding shelter, forest camps provided near-satisfactory conditions; temple elephants
were housed within man-made boundary walls with predominantly hard floors; zoo
elephants were provided both natural vegetated areas with suitable flooring and man-
made enclosures. Elephants owned by private owners were provided natural flooring with
variation in shelter type. Circus elephants were chained near their tents without access to
forests or natural conditions.
Forest camps had access to rivers/streams while temple-owned animals depended largely
on taps with only a few having access to rivers; zoo elephants had access to lakes, ponds
as also tanks and taps; circus elephants were provided water in buckets. The Private
ownership, Mysore Palace elephants had access to tap water while Aane-Mane elephants
were taken to a river in the forest. All the observed institutions scored lower rating than
the recommended ones with forest camps and circuses scoring comparable values.
-
7
The availability of suitable space and the duration of sleep were rated across three sub-
parameters; natural forest provides the best sleeping area for the elephants, available for
FC elephants. FC elephants walked in surrounding forests, temple-owned ones on roads,
crop fields, around temples, etc., Mysore Zoo elephants within the enclosure, circus
elephants on tarred roads, and palace elephants within the palace limits; Aane-Mane
animals roamed in the forests, Bannerghatta Biological Park (BBP) elephants walked
within their morning enclosure as well as in the surrounding forest.
FC elephants had opportunity to interact with other elephants, whereas in temples nearly
44% of the animals were not allowed to interact as a consequence of maintaining single
elephants. Mysore Zoo elephants were allowed to interact, but for the lone male which
was segregated; BBP allowed its elephants to interact in the enclosure as well as when
left in the forest to range free. Circus elephants were allowed to interact when not
working. Mysore Palace elephants were allowed to interact when not working and Aane-
Mane elephants, consisting of two adult females and a male calf, were allowed to interact
without any restrictions.
The work performed by FC elephants included patrolling/kumki/safari in surrounding
forest areas; while the temple elephants blessed people and offered pooja, standing for
hours in one place. A few elephants, both in Mysore Zoo and BBP, all elephants in
Mysore Palace were used for tourist rides. Circus elephants perform for an audience
everyday, and Aane-mane elephants had no specific work assigned to them.
Seventy-eight per cent elephants were provided with free-ranging opportunity and stall
feed in FC, and 25% were reported to have raided crops. Only seven per cent temple
elephants were allowed to range free. Mysore Zoo, Mysore Palace and circus provided
only stall feed. BBP elephants were both stall-fed and are also allowed to range free to
browse/ graze in the adjoining forest.
High rating has been given for elephants from forest camps, in the context of
reproductive status, and reproductive expression. The camps appear to replicate to the
extent possible conditions found in the wild. Ratings for health management suggest that
zoos are in a better shape in this aspect and temples garner very low points.
The mean and expert ratings for mahout/cawadi do not match with each other for any of
the management regimes investigated. The match for zoo was 77% of expert rating and
with high variation it was 71% for circus.
The overall rating for all the parameters among the different regimes suggests that forest
camps, zoos and private owners exhibit comparable ratings, and FCs outscore the rest.
Comparatively low ratings were observed for temples and circus elephants.
The availability of forest areas along with opportunity to range free in the company of
other elephants has led to a near-natural environment for the FC elephants. Zoo elephants
have access to interact and one zoo (BBP) has even allowed its elephants free ranging
environment in the surrounding forest. Circus elephants were chained for most parts of
-
8
the day and interaction was restricted even when other elephants were present. There
was variation in the facilities provided by the two types of private owners surveyed.
While Mysore Palace elephants were restricted in their movements to their premises,
Aane-mane elephants were allowed to range free in the adjoining forest.
-
9
Recommendations
Forest camp and zoo elephants
The presence of river/water bodies, forest cover and veterinary intervention makes forest
camps the best model for elephant keeping. However, there is conspicuous lack of clarity
in the objective of establishing forest camps and zoos and their contributions to
conservation or welfare. Decidedly, there appeared to be no direct role is being played in
conservation as no animals are released back into the wild to replenish the wild stock. If
the objective is welfare, then increasing the numbers through breeding makes little sense
due to the concomitant shortage of resources including land, water, manpower and
budget.
In the current scenario, we recommend that fulfilling welfare needs adequately would
require a check in elephant breeding. While breeding may constitute a positive indicator
of the health and environment of an elephant, reproduction is meaningless unless the
increased numbers get an equal if not better quality of life. We also do not recommend
separating individual elephants from family herds.
Forest camps/institutions often house more than one elephant in (semi-) natural
surroundings. The daily routine of the elephant often involves work. In general, the work
is carried out under less stressful conditions than, for instance, the circus and temple
elephants. Camp elephants require extensive management plans and budgets because of
the presence of several elephants and animal handlers.
Space
There is a need to change the management of elephants that are tied for long hours in
some forest camps. Most elephants have limited foraging movement, since their feet are
shackled or are tied to heavy drag chains.
Except for specific cases, elephants may be allowed to roam without hobbling.
Experiments on using only drag chains may be considered, for the easy retrieval of the
animals by mahouts.
Specific "musth" management for male elephants should be considered like an enclosure
(fenced area of 2 or more acres) where such animals could be housed for up to 2 months.
This is preferable to shackling and leaving them in the same spot for 4–8 or more weeks
at a time. A specific design for fenced or elephant proof trench-based enclosure should be
considered. Issues such as the animal injuring itself through the fence or accidentally
falling into the trench should be given priority.
Management of campsites should be changed periodically depending upon the
availability of fodder and water. In doing this, we need to address the mahouts’
requirement of accommodation, etc. All forest camps in Karnataka have to consider
alternative campsites so that there is enough foraging material and water in different
seasons. This needs planning and management and should not be based on random
decisions on site selection.
-
10
Water
No scientific observation on water consumption by individual elephants is available,
resulting in lack of information on the quality, quantity and cleanliness of this important
resource.
Water quality should be checked periodically and campsites rotated according to
availability and quality of water. Sources of contamination, if any, should be identified,
e.g. agricultural, industrial, human waste, etc.
Diet
Forest/Camp elephants naturally forage for bulk of their diet. Usually, their feet are
securely shackled and they are unable to roam freely to forage. Additionally, foraging
does not meet the elephants’ requirements during the summer months. It has been noticed
that almost all mahouts and cawadis are reluctant to leave their elephants further afield,
since it entails extra work in retrieving them in the mornings. Supervision of mahouts and
periodic inspections and incentives should be initiated.
It is recommended that the use of elephants for tourist ride during the summer months be
lowered. When used, extra food should be provided to the elephants. Their use in
monsoon is even more problematic as the ground is very slippery and makes it difficult
for the elephant to walk with a load.
Diet charts (depending on age, sex, work load, pregnancy, lactation and musth) spanning
different times of the year have to be extensively worked out and displayed, in
consultation with researchers and veterinarians. Most camps have no diet charts or have
poorly developed ones. Supplements of vitamins and mineral mixtures should be
considered.
Source of food supply should be checked regularly for quality and pesticide
contamination. This is in the light of reports of elephant deaths, including calves, in some
cases.
The debate on providing cooked food or specific supplements such as jaggery (hardened
balls of sugarcane juice) to elephants needed to be critically reviewed. Specific reasons
for administering a given food item(s) needs to be displayed on the ration chart. This
should be a source of knowledge or learning experience for newcomers.
Provision of food in zoos
Since wild elephants spend almost 80% of a day in foraging, provision of
highlynutritious food in large quantities in zoos, frees up the time available for
theseelephants. Hence, provision of browse (leaves, branches) as an enrichment device
-
11
might be considered. This suggestion is specific to Mysore Zoo in Karnataka, as
Bannerghatta Biological Park exposes the elephants to free-ranging management.
Exercise and work
In camps and zoos, where elephant rides are offered or the animals are used as active
tourist attractions, care should be taken to ensure that the elephants’ routine is not
disturbed. For example, the schedule for feeding the elephant should not be
disturbed/delayed for the convenience of tourists.
Elephants which are old, pregnant, and with calves should not be used for tourist rides (as
is being done in some national parks and zoos).
Patrolling or use as kumki for conflict mitigation constitutes better alternative activity for
forest camps and national park elephants. This is to be preferred over using the elephant
for tourist ride. This activity should not compromise the elephant’s foraging or its access
to food and water.
Zoo elephants lack proper physical exercise due to the constraints of space. The elephants
of the Bannerghatta Biological Park are in a relatively better position due to the presence
of forest regions. These forests result in the elephants getting their natural forage and
exercise. Some arrangement has to be made for proper physical exercise of the Mysore
Zoo elephants. Rotation of elephants with camps is a possibility as Mysore is close to
Nagarahole where it is possible to relocate them in natural setting. However, since zoos
are not adequate for the conservation of elephants, especially breeding, the number of
animals displayed should be reduced to the minimum, and probably selected among
retired camp elephants that present no more prospects for breeding or work.
Elephant enclosures, especially in zoos, tend to be monotonous. This is despite their large
home range size. As elephants are active for 75% of the day, it is important to provide for
their normal activities, e.g. dust baths, mud wallows, browsing, foraging, challenges to
retrieve food, appropriate social interaction, scratching posts and other environmental
enrichments and stimulations. In fact, zoos are good to keep a few retired camp elephants
that are well trained, and are easy to handle.
Training
Three aspects need to be considered
Training of elephants captured from the wild
Training of calves
Nature of training
The existing methods of training appear to be primitive and may be detrimental to the
animal’s welfare.
-
12
Training of calf/sub-adults includes: weaning process, isolation, separation from mother
and family group. The recommended methods are: positive reinforcement without
separation from mother and in the presence of adult elephants.
This training is accomplished by providing food, treats and light taps on the elephant’s
legs and head in order to make him/her understand what is required. The elephant learns
association of words with an action, which is then rewarded. This method is time-
consuming, but is more welfare oriented than the traditional methods.
Reproduction
Increasing the numbers of births compromises the welfare of elephants due to scarcity of
resources. Therefore, even though reproduction is a signal of welfare, there is no existing
vision (policy) to increase or decrease population in camps/ zoos.
Our data seems to suggest there are only a few breeding females in the population in
Karnataka. As temples maintain predominantly female elephants, most of the elephants
have also been sourced out to these places.
A policy document should be made available on reproduction and the following features
should be considered
Knowledge of estrous cycles, mating period, calving intervals, age at first birth and
number of births is important in managing the reproductive health of females.
For males, details on musth are not available (where available, they are vague and
inconclusive) for most camps in terms of time, duration, age at first musth,
synchrony/asynchrony in musth and if the elephant has been exposed to females.
Veterinary care
Although some camps have no resident doctors, the camps are not located far from those
that have a veterinarian in place. The ratio of doctor to elephant is approximately 1:18.
Doctors in zoos may be burdened with other responsibilities/taking care of other animals.
Therefore, many elephants may not get timely medical attention. This aspect has to be
critically reviewed depending on work load.
Some of the problems faced in veterinary care are:
Doctors do not have access to timely laboratory reports enabling them to take appropriate
medical action. Most reports reach them in 45 days to one year, rendering lab results
worthless.
Veterinarians may like access to modern, contemporary, reasonably well-equipped
laboratory.
-
13
There should be scope for veterinary research. Presently, limited funds may be available
from the department. However, these may be insufficient for detailed investigations or
follow-up.
Government approvals for emergency testing are time-consuming and therefore valuable
time needed for treating affected animals is lost.
The following procedures need to be followed:
Periodic health check-up.
Blood/urine and dung sampling for routine clinical examination.
Specific check-up for TB, Herpes, etc.
Routine check for feet, skin, eyes and for injuries, if any.
Cattle, stray dogs should be removed from elephant camps and their
surroundings as they can propagate diseases to elephants or in the case of
dogs, they create havoc among elephants.
Equipment related to handling animals
Information on the current status of equipment such as chains, ropes and howdah is very
sketchy or not critically reviewable. However, some like leg chain, "bedi" or collar, neck
chain, etc. have to be periodically replaced. Howdah used for tourist rides should be
regularly checked to ensure that it does not hurt the animal.
Body measurements
Weight and body measurements in relation to height, neck and chest girth and body
length should be periodically measured in standard, calibrated measuring units.
Measuring number of defecations, number of boluses, dung boluses per defecation,
circumference of each bolus is recommended in relation to an individual elephant's age.
This provides authentic information on digestion, health and nutrient uptake by the
animal.
Simple body condition measures should be documented regularly like visibility of ribs,
scapula and buckle cavity. These measurements are an indicator of the captive animal's
health condition. The departmental veterinarian should maintain all data in a health or
medical register. The department could also have collaborative projects with universities/
research for scientific data collections.
Maintenance of records Except for a few camps, the maintenance of records, especially the service records (SR),
are poorly compiled and maintained. This shows serious lack of interest, no monitoring
and consequently, no scope for improved management.
Manager and mahout/cawadi have to be trained on the maintenance of basic documents
related to individual elephants. There has to be mandatory maintenance of the SR of each
-
14
elephant and this needs to be updated on a timely basis. Records in most national parks
and forest camps are poorly maintained and rarely updated.
Micro-chipping all zoo and forest camp elephants is a process that needs to be initiated
urgently. This would ensure that data-keeping becomes a less-cumbersome process.
Overall management of zoos
It is commendable that the BBP is maintaining elephants related to each other. This will
help in nurturing a more natural group structure. However, the objective of the zoo needs
to be defined in the backdrop of availability of forest area in the vicinity. Given
conservation of species as one of the objectives, successful breeding among captive
females needs to be considered vis-à-vis the future of a growing captive population. The
zoo has recorded 18 births from the present set of adult females. However, only two
generations of mother–daughter pair are to be found. The zoo needs to formulate a policy
to maintain a certain number of individuals while taking a decision on a growing captive
population. One option could be to release into the wild, following an established and
standard health protocol. The other could be to transfer entire groups to different
institutions, rather than the present practice of separation of single individuals. This
practice of separation from an established group could be stressful for both the individual
and the new group (Clubb and Mason, 2002).
Given an objective of educating the public about the importance of wildlife, maintaining
elephants in un-natural captive conditions, despite availability of a forest nearby, does not
seem appropriate. A decision on whether the elephants will be subject to free contact
training needs to be taken. This will attain significance if a decision is taken to release
them into the wild. Training mahouts/handlers to observe behaviour of related and un-
related elephants when they are together will help in managing the animals better, while
providing a database for research.
Funds
Information on this aspect is not transparent or the value of this important parameter is
not clearly understood. There seems to be a delay in release of funds earmarked. In most
camps there seems to be a delay in payment of wages and wage arrears. Fund allocation
and dispersal should be done on a consistent and regular basis. Financial hardships of
mahout/cawadis have been seen to result in misappropriation of rations meant for the
elephant. This may not be true in all cases.
Elephant mahouts/cawadis
Except for permanent employees of the forest camps and zoos, which are few in number,
most are daily wage workers. Employee status needs to be looked into, and improved
upon, according to years of service and expertise.
-
15
New, temporary cawadis train themselves by observing and participating in group
activities. Training should be consistent and offered throughout the year. The monitoring
officers should grade their performance. Training should include specific classes on
elephant biology, physiology and psychology, simple first-aid treatment, personal
hygiene, etc. Mahouts/cawadis should be taken for inter-camp and zoo visits within or
outside the state. A one- or two-day training program has little relevance. The same
resources could be utilised better for the welfare of the mahouts/cawadis.
Due to frequent change of handlers, the experience of mahouts/cawadis in handling
particular, individual elephants is not high. Both mahouts and cawadis show poor
education level. Salaries provided are insufficient. This is true of insurance coverage as
well. Consumption of alcohol seems to be high amongst both. Mahouts and cawadis are
clear that their children would not join the profession. If elephant-keeping is to be
successful, certain incentives for the families of the mahouts need to be initiated. Only
then would it be seen as a profession of choice and not of poverty and illiteracy.
Transfer or exchange of elephants between facilities
Several studies suggest that movement across facilities breaks social bonds, especially
among females. The shifting of animals leads to disruption of hierarchy and results in
related problems. It may also result in aggression towards an animal, which has been
reintroduced into its own group. Transfers or relocations of elephants should be done
after much thought. Necessary discussions with the mahouts and handlers need to be
undertaken to avoid arbitrary and random movements, which may disrupt an elephant's
emotional ties with related herd members.There are usually some “problem” elephants in
zoos and camps, brought in through confiscation or dumped by private owners or
agencies unable to cope with the animal. Thereafter, these are parked in forest camps and
zoos. These elephants require a different management concept with a specific and more
care-oriented approach.
Specific quarantine measures/decision to allow this animal to interact with other
members of the centre may be taken according to the background of the animal. Health
checks and other tests should be completed without delay.
Camps are burdened with many animals coming from these sources. Government should
allocate extra budget as a contingency/non-planned expenditure to ensure proper care of
these animals. These specific elephants often suffer due to the reluctance of the
concerned department to take action on their behalf.
Establishment of monitoring committees exclusively for these confiscated/rescued/
abandoned elephants that are parked in camps and zoos needs to be looked into.
There is also a clear scope for the formulation of a care facility, which is NOT
necessarily a forest camp or zoo, due to the existing numbers of suffering and abused
-
16
captive elephants across the states. Care centers need to be placed within a forest and
close to a river. A non-wild elephant area may also be considered.
Adoption of elephant FC/zoos It is recommended that forest camps and elephant facilities in zoos may be adopted by
NGOs and other agencies that have a proven track record of being professional,
knowledgeable, mature and sincere. This includes working with the concerned
departments, volunteering for daily activities, and maintenance of record-keeping,
involvement in budget allocation and work with the concerned attendants. However, care
should be taken that camps should not indirectly fall into the power of organisations with
a declared or undeclared commercial intention. The department should always keep an
administrative control over this.
Temple/Mutt elephants
Keeping of elephants in temples and ensuring their welfare therein seems to be an uphill
task. The recommendations clearly indicate that though it would be best to phase out
temple elephants over a designated period of time, their current management need
controls and checks.
Temple elephants are individually housed with usually not more than one elephant per
temple. This is the first of many unnatural conditions the temple elephant has to deal
with. Working conditions are poor; exposed to long hoursof unnatural behaviour
(blessing and seeking alms several times a day), standing still for long periods of time on
concrete, asphalt or other hard flooring lack of space, exercise and shade). These factors
make the average temple and circus conditions the worst in managing captive elephants.
Permission-giving authority
Despite the reverence accorded to them, temple elephants are the most abused, often due
to ignorance and lack of guidance from the concerned departments. Since the Chief
Wildlife Warden (CWW) of a state is the permission-giving authority, it is strongly
suggested that the department has an obligation to see that laws are followed strictly and
the well-being of the animal is ensured.
It is in the interest of the elephants and general public that NO NEW ELEPHANTS BE
BROUGHT UNDER THE MANAGEMENTOF TEMPLES/MUTTS/ASHRAMS.
Periodic checks have to be made by the concerned department personnel and the
veterinarian. In the absence of manpower and other resources, the CWW should not
accord ownership certificates to temples desirous of keeping elephants. Majority of these
temples have conditions rated as less than satisfactory for keeping captive elephants.
A committee constituted by the CWW of the State should review all temples desirous of
keeping elephants. The report should be submitted to the CWW, before permissions are
granted for keeping elephants on their premises.
-
17
The temple authorities often do not anticipate the effects of faulty management practices
that can endanger the life of the mahout, the public and the elephants. The Forest
Department should call for the assistance of experts, biologists, researchers and NGOs
who should constitute a team to negotiate with the temple authorities. This ensures that
the temple authorities understand the problems and responsibilities that elephant-keeping
entails.
The term “upkeep, maintenance and housing” as stated in section 42 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972, should be clearly defined and standards of grading should be
urgently initiated to prevent confusion amongst the inspecting personnel.
On inspection of existing temple elephants, if norms for keeping fall below the required
standards as defined by policy-makers, the temples should be persuaded to house them in
a care center. The temple authorities should come forward to contribute towards the
maintenance of the elephant.
Temples should be persuaded to comply with the above recommendations on the
condition that their elephants would be allowed to participate in certain seasonal temple
rituals. However, the rituals should not endanger the welfare of the animal.
A handbook on elephant management should be created, with information on space,
water, nutrition, exercise, information on mahout, etc. This should be easily available to
all private owners and agencies.
Animal care
Most temple elephants suffer from lack of space, isolation and have no arrangements for
exercise, bathing, free ranging or interactions. These conditions should be improved in
whichever way possible. In fact, some elephants have no proper resting place even at
night since the temple premises have restricted areas.
Most temples with elephants are not able to provide optimal conditions, though they may
have financial resources to do so. This is because the needs of the elephants and those of
the temples are disparate. These temples should be barred from keeping elephants in
future. Conditions existing at the temples need to be thoroughly evaluated before
ownership is granted to applicants.
A report by Clubb and Mason mentions:
o EAZA and AZA recommend natural substrates: sand, soil and grass in outdoor enclosures to allow for expression of natural behaviour such
as dust bathing; sand/soil should be available at all times. Also, tree
stumps or boulders should be available for elephants wanting to rub
their backs (p: 41).
o EAZA: Maximum of three hours of chaining in a 24-h day.
-
18
o AZA: Elephants should not be subjected to prolonged chaining, unless necessary for veterinary treatment or transport (P: 44).
Temple/mutt/privately owned/circus elephants could be housed permanently in forested
and river-based regions. Many such housing facilities could be created across the states.
The management of these elephants (fund, feeding, work, keeper and other aspects
related to it) may come under temple/mutt/private/circus, and work for elephants (viz
festivals, circus activities), may be decided by the owners, but the housing facilities
offered in forested (private or reserved forests) or river-based region may improve the
quality of the management substantially.
Food and Water
Proper diet charts need to be urgently formulated in collaboration with the Forest
Department, researchers, veterinarians and NGOs, based on knowledge and expert
scientific advice.
Sufficient supply of food is often lacking due to faulty utilization or lack of funds
observed in many private and government-owned temples.
Feeding of inappropriate and "junk" food owing to lack of knowledge and awareness
about proper nutrition often leads to severe health problems.
Water is scarce due to lack of storage options and lack of hygienic facilities. Water for all
elephants, in all management regimes, needs periodical checking for chemical or sewage
contamination.
Health Care
Veterinary care, when present, is aimed only towards treatment of specific medical
conditions and emphasis is not placed on prevention or recurrence. Presence of
veterinarians, though an important component in the management of elephants, should
not be over-rated. It has been a consistent observation that even with the presence of
many skilled veterinarians in Kerala, the condition of the elephants continues to
deteriorate in an alarming way. The medical management is also focused more towards
treatment rather than prevention.
Routine health check-up for temple elephants needs to be made mandatory. In case the
CWW gives permission for ownership of elephants by private individuals or temples,
guidelines need to be formulated in advance with the medical team. This would ensure
that the check-ups are specific in nature and are not general clearances offered by the
veterinarian as a routine procedure.
Before permissions are granted for the keeping of elephants, the CWW should ascertain
the availability of qualified and experienced veterinarians in the area.
-
19
Documentation of an elephant's health history should be made mandatory. Unnecessary
deaths of captive elephants should be avoided at all costs.
Since elephants are subjected to high stress due to monotonous routine, lack of
interaction and small area of confinement, the CWW should be very careful in awarding
permissions as per Section 42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Work Conditions
Temple elephants are subjected to work in order to earn revenue for the temple and
mahout. Coupled with lack of knowledge and absence of guidelines, the animals get
abused routinely in terms of their working conditions. Blessing devotees, in some cases
many times a day is a burden for the elephant on festival days. Work of such nature
should not be entertained.
The practice of blessing by the elephants should be treated as an offence
Physical exercise is often neglected and if the elephant is walked, it is made to do so on
tarred roads. This is not recommended because of the animals' special feet structure. If
they must be made to walk on hard substrates/tarred roads, it should be at a time suitable
to the elephant’s temperature tolerance, early mornings and late evenings.
Temple elephants are also often placed in locations least suited to their needs, and such
negligent temples should not be permitted to keep elephants.
Festival elephants
In addition to temple elephants and those owned by private owners or circuses, there are
elephants that take part in seasonal festivals. The elephants attract huge crowds and
partake in the rituals.
There should be a policy of rigorous scrutiny by the concerned department,
with assistance from NGOs and other agencies, to scrutinize the season, hours,
nature of work, etc. of the elephants participating in festivals. Efforts should
be made to discourage this new and unsuitable trend.
It is time to initiate the process of applying for formal permissions to the State
Wildlife Department by concerned bodies for granting approvals for religious
or commercial activities. This direction would give an opportunity to regulate
and control the usage of captive elephants for such purposes.
Logging elephants
Elephants are used for logging in the border areas of Karnataka. They operate under the
auspices of a broker, who hires them from elephant owners in Kerala for off-season work
in neighbouring states.
-
20
The Forest Department of Karnataka should crack down heavily on the
brokers who arrange for the elephants to be brought in illegally across the
state borders and book cases against the owners.
The entire exercise is against transportation laws, necessary documentation
and permit requirements that have been clearly spelt out in the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972.
Local people should be asked to be monitoring agents for the Wildlife
Department to immediately report these cases to the concerned authorities.
Ownership documents of these elephants should be scrutinized, as in many
cases they are forged or inaccurate copies that have no validity.
The commercialization of captive elephants should be discouraged wherever
possible, since this activity is denuding the forests of precious genetic
material.
Circus elephants
Circus elephants enter Karnataka approximately once a year, usually in the December–
January season, numbering six or seven elephants, with ages ranging from 4 to 35 years.
They are showcased in three shifts for 15 minute each starting from 1pm to 8 pm, 30 days
a month. These activities strain their normal behaviour and welfare due to confined
spaces, constant restraint, unhygienic conditions due to lack of tethering spots, lack of
water for drinking and bathing, etc.
The use of elephants in circuses should be banned, as they do not have access
to natural lifestyles or conditions. Since there is absolutely no scope for
improvement in the condition and welfare of these animals, NO NEW
ANIMALS SHOULD COME INTO THE INDUSTRY.
The elephants kept currently should be micro-chipped and monitored by
multi-agency assistance so that no new elephants can be introduced in the
entertainment industry. These elephants should be the direct responsibility of
the State Forest Department, Animal Welfare Board of India, and Central Zoo
Authority and the trend is phased out eventually.
If circus elephants are found to be in poor state of physical and mental health
(as identified by experts), the state needs to confiscate the said animal.
Privately owned elephants
Currently, only 2% of this group lives under good welfare conditions including adequate
water, freedom of movement, interaction with other elephants and semi-forested
living/movement area. About 78% live in very poor environment and suffer from lack of
facilities that constitute good elephant-keeping. This group is also used for financial and
commercial activities that severely compromise their welfare.
-
21
A handbook on elephant management should be created with information on
space, water, nutrition, exercise, mahout information, etc. and made easily
available to all private owners.
It is recommended that privately owned elephants be inspected from time to
time and their environment evaluated as to the suitability of the habitat.
The records should be maintained and ownership papers withheld if the
animals are being commercially exploited.
Living conditions should be provided with day-and-night shelters with earthen
floors, bedding (specifically for those animals which are kept on concrete
flooring for day and night shelters), water facility for drinking and bathing,
feeding against diet charts, trained veterinarians, information about births and
deaths and appointment of trained mahouts should be the norms for private
elephant-keeping.
Good ownership and elephant keeping should be encouraged and made into
models for other elephant owners to follow.
Mahout/Cawadi welfare
Basic facilities
Most temple/mutt/private ownership/circus mahouts have no proper accommodation,
food and water facilities due to the negligence, ignorance or flouting of existing labour
laws on the part of both the management and the mahouts themselves. This contributes to
their remaining a very impoverished and underprivileged community.
Most mahouts are illiterate or have primary school education. Their children
lack proper education facilities as a result of which hereditary elephant-
keeping may continue to result in the next generation of elephant handlers
remaining illiterate.
Mahouts have no proper training methods or recruitment procedures due to
lack of guidelines and interest in their profession.
Social Security
Mahouts suffer from extreme poverty, financial instability and constant danger
to their lives. They are usually not insured by the management.
There are no benchmarks for their work and their performance is not under
any scrutiny. There are neither laws nor regulations that seem to apply to
-
22
them. Due to their nature of work, they are unable to organize their labour
force to the level of a workers’ union.
The importance of health checks for mahouts cannot be overstated. However,
rarely have any medical check-ups been conducted or fitness criteria adopted
for recruitment of mahouts. This may be due to lack of knowledge and interest
or tendency on the part of owners to cut costs. Mahouts should be registered
by the department, given a professional card after a medical check-up to be
renewed periodically and the employer should be forced to take an insurance
policy for them.
Management
There are many issues faced by the management, be it an individual owner,
temple authority, or a deputed officer in Government-owned temples in
maintaining the elephants and mahouts. General recommendations to improve
management are:
Documentation
Maintenance of SR (Service Registers) of animals and mahouts, currently
unavailable due to negligence and lack of knowledge.
Strict medical histories of the animals need to be maintained. In many cases,
there is complete lack of responsibility and interest on the part of the manager
and veterinarian of an elephant-keeping facility.
Maintenance of employee records and medical details of a mahout/cawadi and
their family. This is currently unavailable due to lack of systematic guidelines
for elephant-keeping procedures.
Crisis Management
To ascertain and judge the ability of the management to react to emergencies
pertaining to the animal/mahout in day-to-day affairs. This is currently
ignored due to lack of training and knowledge.
To evaluate medical emergencies related to an elephant. The negligence in
treating early symptoms of disease, the lack of veterinary expertise and
unavailability of veterinary facilities need to be addressed.
To establish a database of experienced mahout pool. This database is currently
unavailable. Unavailability of mahouts due to lack of an established network
-
23
is the single-most important reason of elephant suffering and cruelties at the
hands of inept handlers.
-
24
Introduction
Elephants have been maintained in captivity for a variety of reasons over thousands of
years either to be used in battles between kingdoms or for timber-gathering operations.
The need for the former does not exist in the present political system in India where there
are no kingdoms. Based on compassion or for economic reasons, there is continued
existence for elephants in a captive state. The state of Karnataka is home to captive
elephants maintained by different management systems, providing a variety of facilities
for its animals. Elephants cannot be considered to be domesticated despite their long
association with people, (Kurt and Garai, 2007) making it imperative to provide an
environment in captivity which does not affect the animal’s biological/ social/ecological
needs.
Objectives
The existence of varying captive conditions entails that their welfare status is assessed
objectively to provide for better well-being of the animals in captivity. Also, the welfare
of mahouts/cawadis becomes imperative as they form an integral part of the captive
elephant situation. This investigation was initiated to assess the welfare status of captive
elephants and their handlers from different management regimes in Karnataka
Method and data-processing protocols
Imposing alien conditions on a non-domesticated, frequently wild caught species of
animal has dire
consequences on the life of
the animal. With this
perspective, welfare status
of elephants has been
assessed based on the
deviations experienced in
living conditions from that
experienced by their wild
counterparts. Welfare has
been assessed considering the physical environment, social and behavioural features
along with
availability and
access to
veterinary
personnel and
facility. Data
was collected
(Figure 1a,b,c
and d), through
observation of
animal(s) and
interview of
Figure 1a, b, c and d: Data collections through elephant body
measurements, direct observations and interactions with keepers
-
25
personnel/ Management, representing various aspects of the elephant’s life in captivity.
The data was grouped into different categories (parameters) based on its identity in terms
of physical/social/managerial/physiological relevance to the animal.
Insights on rating A team of experts wildlife scientists (more specifically experts on elephants),
veterinarians, managers (dealing with captive elephants), handlers and welfare activists
rated different parameters/sub-parameters of importance to the welfare of captive
elephants (Varma, 2008; Varma et al., 2008; Varma and Prasad, 2008). The ratings
ranged from 0 (unsuitable) to 10 (suitable) for each parameter and a mean value was
estimated for that parameter. Experts used different maxima (with 10 being the limit) for
each parameter/sub-parameter based on their concept of importance of a particular
parameter to an elephant.
The number of parameters rated by experts was 114; variables which represent a common
feature of the captive condition have been grouped to form a parameter. The variables
have been termed as sub-parameters. For example, variables shelter type, shelter size,
floor type in the shelter namely represents different aspects of the physical space
provided to the elephant. Hence, these are grouped together to form the parameter
“Shelter” and each constituent variable is the sub-parameter.
Using the experts’ rating as a reference, a rating scale was developed for each of the sub-
parameters. This scale ranged from 06/ 07/ 08 /09 in relation to the maxima provided by
the experts.
While the experts rated only 114 parameters, in some situations, the ground data
available exceeded this number. The additional information was crucial and could not be
ignored. For example, the parameter “work” did not include such aspects as “work
timing”. The maxima provided by the experts for “work” was used to develop a scale for
the sub-parameter “work timing” as this forms an integral part of the parameter “work”.
“Work timing” can have three properties:
a. Early morning + evening hours b. Early morning + early evening c. Late morning + early evening
Of these properties, the first is given the maximum provided by the experts for the related
feature “work” which is 8.0. This is followed by the second option which gets a rating of
4.0; the third option gets the least rating of zero (0). Thus, the scale for a related and
additional parameter will range from 0.0 to 8.0. Following this logic, all additional
information (not rated by experts) was rated.
This rating scale, ranging from 0 to the maxima provided by the experts (for example,
8.0) was used to rate the welfare status of the elephants/handlers. The maxima refer to
the importance attached to a parameter (with 8.0 as the maximum value, only 2 (20%)
deviation from the prescribed norm is acceptable).
-
26
Results depicting ratings for each management regime for a particular parameter have
been presented in the form of figures. These ratings represent the average across sub-
parameters observed within each parameter (referred henceforth as Mean Rating M-R).
The figures also include the maximum rating provided by experts for that parameter
(referred henceforth as Expert Rating E-R). E-R is the mean across the maxima for all
related sub-parameters provided by experts. The results are presented by comparison of
M-R and E-R.
For some institutions, the E-R is not uniform as data available was not uniform and it is a
function of the data available for rating. Some parameters will not have any relevance for
an institution. For a temple-owned elephant, opportunity to range free to browse/graze is
usually absent. Hence E-R for this parameter will not be included. Consequently, the E-R
for the parameter of interest (for example, food provisioning) may vary from that of other
institution, say, Forest Camp (FC). The welfare status of mahouts/handlers has been
assessed by looking at socio-economic parameters and the handler’s relationship with his
animal in terms of experience, knowledge of commands, etc. Bad or poor handler welfare
may be associated with poor handling of his animal. Five management regimes were
classified based on ownership details provided. Elephants with two management types
Zoo and Private Owners have been dealt with in detail by further classifying them based
on the facilities provided. This can be accessed in the individual institution reports
provided.
Zoo: Bannerghatta Biological Park (BBP), Bangalore, and Sri Chamarajendra
Zoological Gardens, Mysore (Mysore Zoo).
Private owners: The Regency Stud Farm (Mysore Palace), Mysore and the Aane-
Mane Foundation, Dubare.
Results
Five management regimes were studied, of which 153 elephants were observed and data
collected. The distribution of number of elephants across regimes is given in Figure 2.
The results show FC elephants score over those owned by temples, zoos, private owners
and circuses.
Figure 2: Distribution of sampled elephants across regimes.
56.9
20.9
11.84.6 5.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Forest
camps
Temples Zoos Circus Private
owners
Per
cen
tag
e
-
27
Population status
The results suggest that more number of males are being maintained by FCs followed by
zoos. Greater numbers of females were seen in the other three regimes (Figure 3). Mean
age of the elephants was 28.5 yrs (SE = 1.7, N = 135) with 67 males and 86 females with
age ranging from 0.1 to 73 yrs. The age class distribution was biased towards females in
all regimes except circus and age of male refers to single elephant maintained by circus
(Figure 4)
FC: Forest camps T: Temples Z: Zoos Cr: Circuses (single male) Pvt: Private owners
(single male)
Figure 3: Sex-based distribution across regimes. Figure 4: Age distribution across regimes.
Source of elephants
Forty-one percent of all the captive elephants were caught in the wild with only 23%
being captive born (Figure 5). None of the temples surveyed maintained captive-born
elephants; all were purchased/exchanged/gifted; captive-born elephants were reported in
FCs, zoos and circus.
A: Wild caught B: Purchased/ gifted/ exchanged C: Rescued/ orphaned
D: Captive born
Figure 5: Source of captive elephants for different management regimes of Karnataka state.
40.5
26.1
9.9
23.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
A B C D
Perc
enta
ge
63
.2
15
.6 27
.8
14
.3
11
.1
36
.8
84
.4
72
.2 85
.7
88
.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
FC T Z Cr Pvt
Perc
en
tag
e
45
.0
20
.0
18
.2
14
.6
21
.8
30
.4
30
.0
25
.4
24
.1
35
.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
FC T Z Cr* Pvt*
Mean
ag
e (
in y
ears
)
63
.2
15
.6 27
.8
14
.3
11
.1
36
.8
84
.4
72
.2 85
.7
88
.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
FC T Z Cr Pvt
Per
cen
tag
e
Male Female
-
28
Captive-born elephants are given high rating as their adjustment to a captive situation is
less drastic than those which are caught from the wild. However, this situation may not
be ideal for a captive-born animal kept in an unnatural setting.
Shelter
The physical space, along with relevant features, provided to the elephants ranged from
forest areas to man-made structures comprising a boundary wall with sheet cover. High
rating indicates the existence of near-natural forest conditions.
FCs provided near-satisfactory conditions; this could be a
consequence of maintaining the
elephants in forest areas (Figure
6a) as most parameters were
similar to natural, forest conditions
with a natural flooring and shade
from vegetation.
Temple elephants were housed within man-made boundary walls
with predominantly hard floors
(Figure 6b); the M-R is the lowest
among the four institutions.
Zoo elephants were provided both natural vegetated areas with
suitable flooring and man-made
enclosures with hard substrates such as stone/concrete floors, subject to their daily
activity within the zoo for display purposes. This is reflected in the deviation of the
M-R from the E-R.
Elephants with private owners had natural flooring (Figure 6a) with variation observed between the owners regarding shelter type. Mysore Palace elephants were
Figure 6a: Free ranging nature of forest camp and
Aane-mane elephants; forest act as shelter for
both regimes
Figure 6b: Shelter in temples, man made
boundary walls with hard floors
Figure 6c: Shelter and floor provided to
elephants in Palace
-
29
kept on flat mud floors (Figure 6c) while Aane-Mane elephants were kept in forest
area. The M-R is similar to that of zoos, with greater variability in the rating of sub-
parameters.
Circus elephants were chained near their tents (Figure 6d) without access to forest areas or natural conditions. This is represented by low
rating for the two sub-parameters: Shelter type (2.4)
and floor type (4.0) with the E-R being 8.0 for both
sub-parameters.
Considering the deviation from E-R for this parameter:
FCs showed minimum deviation of 3%
Temple and Circus elephants indicated comparable deviation of 69 and 60%, respectively
Zoo and Private-owned elephants too showed comparable deviation of 39 and 43%, respectively
(Figure 7).
*: Mean across two sub-parameters only
Figure 7: Patterns of rating for shelter for different management regimes.
Water and associated features
Forest camps had access to rivers/streams (Figure 8a) which are considered better
sources than stagnant water and provide opportunity in terms of space to perform
species typical activities.
Temple elephants had water from taps with only a few elephants having access to
rivers among temple-owned animals.
Zoo elephants had access to lake/pond water (Bannerghatta) and tank/tap water
(Mysore).
8.0 8.07.0
8.0 8.07.8
4.62.5 4.3
3.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC Temple Zoo Circus* Private
Rati
ng
E-R M-R
Figure 6d: Shelter
provided for elephants in
circus
-
30
Circus elephants were provided water through buckets which restricts the quantity of
water which an elephant can access, along with lack of opportunity of immersing
itself in water while bathing.
Mysore Palace elephants had access to tap water (Figure 8b) while Aane-Mane elephants
were taken to a river in the forest (Figure 8a).
Shoshani and Eisenberg (1982) state the need for elephants to drink and bathe at least
once a day. Mckay (1973) emphasizes the importance of water sources in elephants’
home-range. Added to these observations is the performance of species-typical activities
by the elephants: dust-bathing, wallowing and socializing while drinking/bathing. The
provision for and access to water sources and routines which replicated near-natural
conditions, along with maintenance of health of the animal, was given high rating.
All the observed institutions recorded ratings lower than those recommended, with
Forest camps and circuses getting comparable values, with M-R for circus elephants
showing greater variation indicating (Figure 9) the existence of diverse conditions.
Percent deviation from E-R was:
Minimum was observed for FC (21%)
Maximum deviation was seen in zoos (58%)
Comparable deviations were indicated for Circus and Private -owned elephants (50 and 49%, respectively)
Temple elephants showed a deviation of 37%
Figure 8a: River as source of water for
forest camp and Aane mane elephants Figure 8b: Tap or pipe water as source
of water for private elephants
-
31
7.0 7.08.0 8.0
7.0
3.6
5.5
4.13.4
4.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC Temple Zoo Circus Private
Rat
ing
E-R M-R
Figure 9 Rating for water and associated features for different management regimes.
Sleep
FC elephants were allowed to sleep in forest areas.
For most temple elephants, the shelter also formed the place of sleep.
For BBP elephants, the adjoining forest was the sleeping place whereas for the Mysore Zoo elephants it was a man-made enclosure.
Mysore Palace and circus elephants used the shelter as sleeping place while Aane- mane elephants used the surrounding forest.
The availability of suitable space and duration of sleep was rated across three sub-
parameters: place and size of sleeping area and duration. The provision of natural forest
areas for elephants ensures suitable sleeping area. When this is considered with the 3 to 4
hours of sleep reported for elephants (Zepelin et al., 2006) high rating reflects the
existence of satisfactory conditions. Rating for different systems is presented in Figure
10.
Percent deviation from E-R for different regimes was:
Minimum was indicated in circus (10%), followed by FC (17%)
Comparable deviations were observed for temples (61%) and zoos (60%)
Private-owned elephants indicated a deviation of 51%.
*: Mean across two sub-parameters only.
Figure 10: Rating for sleep for different management regimes.
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.07.2
3.2
3.1
6.6
3.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC Temple Zoo* Circus* Private
Rat
ing
E-R M-R
-
32
Opportunities for walk
FC elephants were allowed to walk in surrounding forests.
Temple elephants were walked on a range of terrains: roads, crop fields, around temples, etc.
Mysore Zoo elephants were left to walk in the enclosure within the zoo while BBP elephants were left in the surrounding forest.
Elephants of the circus were walked on tarred roads.
Mysore Palace elephants were walked within the palace limits, Aane-Mane animals were left in the forest areas.
Wild elephants have been observed to range over several kilometers, being active for
most parts of a day (Sukumar, 2003). Keeping this in perspective, opportunities to walk
on suitable substrates were rated (Figure 11). It should be noted that the rating for the
institutions zoo, circus and private owners reflects “Presence–absence” nature of the sub-
parameter only, implying the need for more insight into the feature to provide a closer
representation of the existing conditions.
Following deviations from E-R were observed:
No deviations were observed for zoo, circus and private-owned elephants (only one-sub-parameter was recorded)
58% was indicated for temple (two sub-parameters)
21% for FC (single sub-parameter)
*: Mean across two sub-parameters only. **Rating for one sub-parameter only.
Figure 11: Rating for walk and related parameters for different management regimes
Social interaction
FC elephants were allowed to interact (Figure 12a) with con-specifics for durations ranging from 0.2–24 h with number of individuals ranging from 1 to 20,
both males and females.
Nearly 44% of the temple elephants were not allowed any interaction (Figure 12b); of the remaining which interacted did so for less than three hours. Number
of individuals consisted of less than four elephants in 94% of the cases.
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
7.1
9.0
3.8
9.0 9.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC** Temple* Zoo** Circus** Private**
Rati
ng
M-R E-R
-
33
Mysore Zoo (Figure 12c) allowed its elephants to interact, except the one male which was segregated; BBP allowed its elephants to interact both in the enclosure
and in the forest when left to range free.
Circus elephants were allowed to interact (Figure 12d) while not working.
Mysore Palace allowed its elephants to interact when not working; the group composed of predominantly females and a single male; Aane-Mane elephants,
consisting of two adult females and one male calf, were allowed to interact
without any restrictions.
Elephants are social animals, with relationships lasting across generations (Sukumar,
2003). Male elephants too have been observed to disperse gradually from their natal herd
(Poole and Moss, 2008). Opportunity for interaction was rated considering group
composition, duration and distance between individuals.
Figure 12 a, b, c d: Scope for social interactions among elephants in forest camps (a), temple
(b), zoo (c) and circus (d).
-
34
Deviation from E-R, expressed as percentage was:
Circus elephants did not show any deviation, but the rating was based on one sub-parameter only.
Both FC and private-owned elephants showed comparable deviation of 17 and 18%, respectively.
Zoo elephants recorded 30% and temple elephants 35% deviation.
Ratings for different management regimes are presented in Figure-13.
*Rating for one sub-parameter only.
Figure 13: Rating for social interaction for different management regimes.
Chaining
Most elephants in FC were allowed to range free at night in the surrounding forests. However, the animals were tied with drag chain/hobbles during this
period.
All the temple elephants observed were reported to be chained; none of the observed elephants was allowed to range free at night, when not working.
Mysore Zoo elephants were not allowed to range free at night and were chained by their legs; BBP elephants were left to range free in the forest at
night with drag chains.
None of the circus elephants was allowed to range free, all were chained for more than 20 hours/day with one animal being tied with a spiked leg chain
Leg chains were used to tie Mysore Palace elephants; Aane-Mane elephants were allowed to range free with a drag chain (Figure 14a, b, c, and d).
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.06.66.6
5.2
5.6 8.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC Temple Zoo Circus** Private
Rati
ng
E-R M-R
-
35
Captive elephants are subjected to various regimens of chaining as a means to
control/manage them. This practice can affect the animal by imposition of restriction
on movement. Opportunity to range free in forest conditions was considered with
high rating to represent occurrence of near-natural conditions of free-ranging
behaviour. Rating for different regimes is presented in Figure 15.
Deviations from E-R for different management systems were:
Maximum deviation was seen in temple elephants (100%).
Private owner elephants showed a deviation of 97%
FC elephants show 49% difference
For regimes with fewer sub-parameters available, the difference from E-R was circus (100%) and Zoo elephants (69%).
Figure 14a: No free ranging, but
chained for long hours in temple
Figure 14b: Aane mane elephants returning
to the camp after free ranging, note drag
chain on elephant’s body
Figure 14c: Chained circus elephant Figure 14d: Seized spike chain from a
private elephant owner
-
36
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
4.1
0.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
FC Temple Zoo* Circus** Private
Rati
ng
E-R M-R
**: Rating for one sub-parameter only *: Rating for two sub-parameters only
Figure 15: Rating for chaining in different management regimes.
Observed behaviour
Seventy-two per cent of FC elephants were described as calm, 82% did not exhibit stereotypy.
Sixty-nine per cent of temple elephants were described as calm, nearly 70% exhibited stereotypy.
Eighty-one per cent of zoo elephants were calm and easy to handle with stereotypic behaviour being reported in only one animal.
All the circus elephants exhibited stereotypy, data on observed temperament was not available hence, conclusion related to temperament cannot be provided.
Fifty-seven per cent of Mysore Palace elephants expressed stereotypy with all except one animal being described as calm; none of the Aane-mane elephants exhibited
stereotypy with one animal being described as nervous.
Captivity imposes a number of conditions on elephants which may find expression in the
form of aberrant behaviour (Bradshaw, 2007). The occurrence of stereotypic behaviour,
aggression towards people and ease of managing the animal was rated. High rating
implies pliable behaviour followed by absence of abnormal behaviour.
Difference from E-R expressed as percentage was as follows:
Based on rating for two sub-parameters only, circus elephants showed 85% and zoo elephants recorded 11%.
Temple elephants expressed a deviation of 42%.
The deviation was 34% for FC and 27% for private-owned elephants.
Different management systems and their respective ratings have been presented in Figure
16.
-
37
*: Mean across two sub-parameters only
Figure 16: Rating for behaviour for different management regimes.
Work
Patrolling/kunki/safari in surrounding forest and occasionally used for timber transportations (Figure 17a) in forest camps and some being used for processions.
Temple elephants bless devotees, (Figure 17b) offer pooja standing for hours at one place; nearly 80% of elephants seek alms from public and